Wikipedia:Peer review/Red Skelton/archive1

Red Skelton[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because We hope and I would like to bring this to FAC in the coming weeks, and would like a pre-flight check for grammar and (if possible) comprehensiveness.

Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, are you up for reviewing my nomination in trade for me reviewing yours? My nomination is going to FA this week, so I need feedback fast. The article is Super Mario Bros. 3 and the page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Super_Mario_Bros._3/archive2. Thanks for everything! URDNEXT (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could stop by, yes (love that game). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm started with reviewing your article! — Crisco 1492 URDNEXT (talk) 01:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great, and I'll take a look at SMB3. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco nitpicks[edit]

We hope, this says four of our links are dead. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Ive gone to wayback machine for the Scottish Rite one. I see that the other 3 are Google News Archive articles from The News and Courier. Google has removed newspapers without warning in the past and it looks like they've done it again with this one. Advice, please on how to keep this as a ref because we may not be able to find the articles at Google News Archive in other papers. Thanks, We hope (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have commented out the url links that as of now have no replacement. I absolutely hate when they do things like this! We hope (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They dood it. Well, we don't need online verification abilities so - so long as you cited the page number and other pertinent information - commenting out the links is enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We hope, you may need a reference for The Great Lazarus and Skelton's filmography, as they don't seem to be referenced elsewhere (and The Great Lazarus doesn't have an OCLC number for verification). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw this now. :/ Got a ref for the book. Took a look at Peter Sellers and I see no refs on the filmography section of his article. Know IMDB isn't considered reliable for this--what about whatever Rotten Tomatoes may have rather than to ref every film in the list? We hope (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about the biographies? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, but I got a list from Encyclopedia of Radio by Christopher H. Sterling. Only trouble is that Google allows one to read the e-book edition only, which has no page numbers (EEK!). The other editions they have online are no previews. Have listed the book in the bibliography and left the Google Books link to the material so at least part of the list (what they'll let us see) can be shown. We hope (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully that's enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to say it, but think the e-book editions are something we're going to need to live/deal with when it comes to Google Books. I started working on ref fixes for Perry Como recently and the first offering from Google was the e-book with no page numbers. Had to work around a bit to locate the print copy there I started out with for the refs. We hope (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

Young Skelton/young newsboy. Rep of "young". Also occurs later on in this sentence. Once is enough.
I'm not sure you "learn" to make people laugh, more "discover".
"he realized that the days of showboats would soon come to an end." This sounds as if he he had a premonition or something. →"he realized that the days of showboats were coming to an end." In fact, "he realized that showboat entertainment was coming to an end."
"Since he had left school at an early age, his wife bought textbooks and taught Skelton what he had missed." -- why do we jump back to his name halfway through when there is no confusion. It would be better to stick with the pronoun throughout as it would make this sentence flow much nicer.
"The couple's hopes were to somehow find work in New York City and break into vaudeville there" -- did they intend to find menial work AND break into vaudeville? Or was the work vaudeville. I would suggest that if the latter, it is a bit redundant mentioning "find work" when we could cut to the chase: "The couple's hopes were to break into vaudeville in New York City."
"When an offer came for a booking in Harwich Port, Massachusetts, some 2,000 miles from Kansas City, the couple was pleased to get it because it was nearer New York City, the capital of vaudeville, than they were at the time." →"When an offer came for a booking in Harwich Port, Massachusetts, some 2,000 miles from Kansas City, the couple were pleased as it was nearer New York City." Also, "capital of NYC" makes it sound like an advertisement IMO.
"To get to Massachusetts, they bought a used car, borrowed five dollars from Edna's mother, and set out on the road" →"To get to Massachusetts, they bought a used car, and borrowed five dollars from Edna's mother." I think we can probably work out the rest ;)
"By the time they arrived in St. Louis, the five dollars had become a mere fifty cents." →"By the time they arrived in St. Louis, they only had fifty cents."
"The Skeltons were able to afford a hotel room that evening and for every night as they worked their way to Harwich Port, selling the eyeglass fog remover." →The Skeltons were then able to afford a hotel room every night as they worked their way to Harwich Port."
"Red and Edna..." →stick to "Skelton and Edna".
"Edna had an idea as they were having breakfast in a hotel coffee shop." -- What was the idea? If it was to revive the Doughnut Dunkers, then this'll need to be made clearer.
"The skit won him the promised Loew's State engagement..." -- Do we need a reminder that it was "promised"?
"They hired New York comedy writers to prepare material for Skelton's Loew's engagement" -- "They hired New York comedy writers to prepare material for the Loew's engagement"?

Up to film work, more to come from this enjoyable article! Cassianto ^talk 08:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much! Have made the changes you suggested. We hope (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Next batch

"After screen star Mickey Rooney had seen Skelton perform his "Doughnut Dunkers" act at President Roosevelt's 1940 birthday party, Rooney contacted Skelton, urging him to try for work in films" →"The actor Mickey Rooney urged Skelton to try for work in films after he saw him perform the "Doughnut Dunkers" act at President Roosevelt's 1940 birthday party."
"Keaton worked with Skelton in this capacity for several of Skelton's films." -- Is there a way of not repeating Skelton's name?
"Keaton offered to forego his salary if the films made by Keaton and Skelton's company were not box office hits; Mayer chose to decline the request." -- Skelton/Keaton, Keaton/Skelton... I feel dizzy! Also, the sentence I have put above could do with "made by Keaton and Skelton's company" being removed. This is redundant seeing as we are talking about it.
Do we not have a link for Buster?

I think I've gotten this done. We hope (talk) 11:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dood it!

"Skelton's voice pattern for Clem was very much like that of the later cartoon character, Bullwinkle." -- "Skelton's voice pattern for Clem was similar to the later cartoon character, Bullwinkle."
"Skelton starred in a 1942 movie of the same name, but did not play "Junior" in the film." -- Who did he play then? I would mention Junior and the other role here.
"The phrase was such a part of national culture at the time, when General Doolittle conducted the bombing of Tokyo in 1942, many newspapers used the phrase "Doolittle Dood It" as a headline." -- "The phrase was such a part of national culture at the time, when General Doolittle conducted the bombing of Tokyo in 1942, that many newspapers used the phrase "Doolittle Dood It" as a headline."
"Skelton also added a routine he had been performing since 1928. Originally called "Mellow Cigars" by Skelton..." -- Do we need two Skelton's here?
I think "studio audience" should be treated as a plural rather than a singular.
*Skelton radio show: was this name of the show? If so, itals would be correct, and wouldn't this use a possessive apostrophe?

I think I've gotten this done. We hope (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the last paragraph of the Divorce from Edna, marriage to Georgia section and see if you can trim back on the "Skelton" mentions. Some of these could easily be replaced by pronouns. This will also need to be checked throughout the entire article.
"By 1947, Skelton's musical conductor was David Rose, who would go on to television with him. he had worked with Rose during his time in the army and wanted Rose to join him on the radio show when it went back on the air." -- needs checking. A stray full-stop is lurking within which is adding confusion to the whole sentence.
"On April 22, 1947, Skelton was censored by NBC two minutes into his radio show. When he and his announcer Rod O'Connor began talking about Fred Allen being censored during his NBC show the previous week, they were silenced for 15 seconds." -- Could be simplified. I take it the second sentence relates to the first?

I think I've gotten this done. We hope (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else after this looks great. Good work! Cassianto ^talk 15:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

From a first read-through purely for typos:

Vallée or Vallee? You have both.
loudmouthed braggard – "braggart" is the spelling in these islands, but perhaps things are otherwise in the US.

That's all from this pass. Three other typos amended. Shall be back with comments on the prose and content shortly. Tim riley talk 10:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very little from me. The structure and proportions are good, and the prose is clear. Just a few points you may care to ponder and act on or ignore as you wish:

General
- Is it, I wonder, an advantage to give three different references for a single fact? It does rather smack the reader's eye with a lot of blue. For instance, the statement about his meeting Edna Stillwell and her being an usher is not so controversial as to demand three separate authorities, surely?
Television
- "grabbed his ankles from behind the set curtain, hauling him offstage face first" – if they grabbed his ankles I don't see how they could have dragged him face first. Should this be face down?
Other interests
- There's a serious epidemic of WP:OVERLINK here. Is anybody ever going to want to click on the links to "short stories", "music", "symphonies", "background music" or "gardener"? Hardly likely.
Legacy and tributes
- No blue link for Charlie Chaplin? It's the first mention of the man (as opposed to the studios).

That's all from me. Please let me know when you get to FAC. Tim riley talk 11:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks to you too! Have changed everything you suggested except the "background music". It was suggested when the article was at GAC that a little explanation of what Muzak was be provided for those who are too young to remember that it was used as a synonym for background music. :) We hope (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

Nice article, from a quick read through: well-balanced, nicely sourced, a good amount of information and not too far away from FA. A few comments for you to look over below, nothing too major in any of it. A few general points to consider across the piece:

There are a few times you use the name Red, rather than Skelton, and these need to be tweaked accordingly;
There are a couple of times when there are batches of references, and cite bundling may be the way to go on these
There are some instances of "...against him.[21][note 23]" and others of "...and Ed Sullivan.[note 22][178][179]": the order needs to be consistent throughout.
There are instances of "pp. 243–52", pp. 247–248 and pp.136–7: pick one of the first two and be consistent (the third format is verboten by the MoS).

Infobox

I'm a great believer in 'less is more' when it comes to IBs (although I appreciate that opinions vary wildly!) There are two things I think you should consider here, although whether you act on them is entirely up to you.

1. Influences & Influenced: I always wince when I see these, and think "is that it?", quickly followed by "I don't see the connection between X and the influenced person". I'm not sure that a bald list of names is hugely helpful, posing more questions than it does providing information or answers, and think a prose appreciation would be a better way to deal with this info.

2. Is inclusion in the 'Television Hall of Fame' an Emmy Award? I appreciate that it's the same organisation, but it's not the same thing. (Overall I don't like the layout of the awards section of the IB, but I guess that's the enforced layout of the thing).

As I say, your call on this, but it's worth a minute or two consideration under your critical eye.

Sticking my oar in unbidden here, I agree wholeheartedly with SchroCat about the "influences" bit of the IB. I thought about mentioning it myself, but as I have a certain notoriety as an IB-sceptic I decided to keep quiet, and am now very glad to hitch a lift on SchroCat's train of thought. Tim riley talk 20:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree with Tim and SchroCat. Cassianto ^talk 22:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Early years

In para 2, you switch from 'he' to 'Skelton' midway, with no reason: I think you may need to read through the whole thing and see if there are any others that need sorting too.
Is "emcee" a real word in AmEng? I presume it's from the more familiar MC, which I would suggest using instead, and perhaps linking it too?

Dunkers

"The Skeltons viewed this engagement as Red's big chance" -> "The couple viewed this engagement as Skelton's big chance"?

Finished down to the end of Dunkers: more to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, think I've gotten to most of this. Spent a lot of time doing pages. They do use the word "emcee" in the US--have changed that as you suggested. No, the Television Hall of Fame isn't an Emmy Award, but it is important because it's the Academy recognizing those who made a significant impact on television. You see people in the Hall of Fame like Ernie Kovacs, who wasn't awarded an Emmy until after his death, but whose work in television was, in Kovacs' case, groundbreaking, and you see people like Skelton and Perry Como, who had long and successful careers on television.

I'm not bent on keeping the "influences" section of the IB, nor on the awards section of it either. The award information is in the text as is most of the information about "influences". Was interested in trying to bundle some of the refs, but not sure what tag to use to keep them going into the right ref spot. We hope (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that whatever is in the lede, should be removed from the IB. That's the problem with IB's, they become hugely repetitive and redundant when placed next to the lede, and more so the bigger they are. Second lot coming from me today. Cassianto ^talk 07:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have killed off a ref or two in strategic spots; what's left should cover the text referred to. Also gave the axe to the influences/influenced segments of the infobox; the box looks like it's a more "manageable" size now and not a threat to take over the article. :) We hope (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that: it looks good now. There are 1,001 opinions about IBs, and it's often a thorny subject, but I think that in slimming down on the infomation, it strengthens the box (and the reason for having it), and means that people won't be tempted to bloat it out with people they think may have been influenced etc—which should make future housekeeping of the article less stressful! - SchroCat (talk) 08:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overall points again

Have you thought about adding date ranges to the main headings? You have to know Skelton's life or career fairly well to know to drop into the "Off the air and bitterness" section if you wanted to read about him in the 1970s, for example. It doesn't need it for the level 3 headings, not the level 4 ones. Your call on whether you chose to take it up or not!
Given Crisco's involvement, and WeHope's excellent image copyright work (often around a mutual friend we've had issues with!) I take it that the images are all good: I haven't checked the licences behind them, you both know much better than I about these things!

Re: our "mutual f(r)iend"--while working on Skelton, I ran into a great quote from Charlie Chaplin regarding "stirring" that seems quite fitting. :) We hope (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! I shall remember that when I inevitably run into the inndividual in question! - SchroCat (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's still a few too many instances of "Skelton"('s), rather than he/his. You'll need to run through the whole thing and see which cones can be squeezed out in the manner of this edit.

Film work

"after he was no longer starring in films": was that after he was starring, or just appearing?

According to the refs and some further reading re: Keaton, his last starring roles were in the 1930s. Keaton made his living from the residuals of his earlier work and by being a comedy consultant to MGM, which is how he came to work with Skelton. He later had some non-starring roles in films, but wasn't really "rediscovered" until a circa 1960 Life magazine story about him. This brought him back into the public eye and he was doing quite a few television programs such as The Twilight Zone and Route 66. Keaton, who was an idol of Ernie Kovacs, began working with him on a television series in early 1962. One episode was filmed before Kovacs was killed in the car crash in January 1962; due to legal issues, it was never aired on television. The poor devil didn't even get to appear in The Buster Keaton Story, but was hired as a consultant for it. :/ We hope (talk) 13:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Radio, divorce and remarriage

"The "Doughnut Dunkers" routine led to Skelton's first appearance": I'm not sure how a routine could lead to something: someone watching a routine, or the routine being performed on something may all be possible, but a routine in itself can't lead to anything!
"Skelton hosted the show until late 1939": it's a bit of a short stubby sentence by itself, and could be worked in with the preceding sentence?

All done down to the end of Cast of characters: more to follow soonest! I'm enjoying reading this: I can see why he and Terry-Thomas enjoyed each other's company and why T-T appeared in a number of Skelton's shows. - SchroCat (talk) 08:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And now I'm off to try making fixes :) We hope (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have done some "deSkeltonizing". We hope (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Final batch from me:

Again, a few copy edits made, feel free to revert if you don't like them (or if I err in my grasp of AmEng!)

Television

"His comedic sketches became legendary": this is going too far into WP:PEACOCKery for me

Richard

The language in this section is a bit over-emotive and unencyclopaedic

I've removed all the "young" descriptors, which are not needed: instead I'd add his age at some point, prob when he was diagnosed. The other bits you need to look at are:

"The heartbroken father"
"CBS management was exceptionally understanding"
"it was the day before Mother's Day"

The Red Skelton Hour

"he did not perform his "Mean Widdle Kid" or "Junior" character": characters?
"He admitted that": I'd keep "admitted" for confessing to a crime: explained or described would be good replacements

Notes

Note 5: "Skelton became a very well-read man with a fine memory he began training in his youth": two things here. Firstly we can lose "very" as it adds nothing; secondly, "a fine memory which he began training" would be better.
Note 7: "Pre-WWII television" -> "pre-World War II television" (lower case "p", and expanding the initials on first viewing
Note 11: "A sketch done by Red": -> "A sketch by Skelton"
Note 15: good.".[105] -> You should remove one of the full stops
Note 16: I'm a little uncomfortable with this: "I have viewed" will mean little when trying to find the reference in the edit history. Is there something from a reliable source that can back this up, or, alternatively, get rid of the "I have viewed" sentence, and add refs to link to 1. The ad on archive.org, and 2. The double-Emmy win.

Crisco 1492, some thoughts, please, on how to make this work. My thought was to take a screen cap from the show and upload it as PD-pre-1978 to Commons. I've checked on both the original registration (none) and any possible renewal (none), as this would give us something "physical" we could attach a PD license to. Thanks! We hope (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about adding a (condensed) version of that footnote as hidden text after the archive.org link? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now I could kick myself because I had it hidden before, but thought it was best to put it in the open. :/ We hope (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since only editors would care (and fairly hardcore editors at that) hidden text works best; maybe a note at the talk page as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK-covered it on the talk page too. We hope (talk) 01:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note 28: Needs a source

That's it from me: a delightful read about a wonderful subject. Please drop me a note when you go to FAC with this. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat, thanks for your time and effort with this! Have made the changes suggested here. Chaplin was right, BTW, about stirring. We hope (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A good answer: discussion is rarely pointless with anyone, but in their case I think it's as close to pointless as it can be, sadly. On Sellers I don't think I've ever had a worse time in trying to improve an article, and I've never had to jump through so many bad faith RfCs. In the end I think there was only one RfC that supported their position: they lost the rest by some margin, which gave me a great measure of satisfaction! - SchroCat (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]